Drive on Opportunity

unmanned vehicles are easier to build for no maintence, when it breaks
no loss, just send another. are you planning on treatin astronauts as
disposable machines?

Manned vehicles have the advantage that the people are there and can
perform maintenance tasks. *You keep trying to make this into a "bug",
but it's really a "feature". *Trust the engineers on this group since
you're clueless when it comes to actual engineering.


manned vehicles are far more complex than unmanned, and you cant
accept failure.... in a manned vehicle.....

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


unmanned vehicles are easier to build for no maintence, when it breaks
no loss, just send another. are you planning on treatin astronauts as
disposable machines?

Manned vehicles have the advantage that the people are there and can
perform maintenance tasks. You keep trying to make this into a "bug",
but it's really a "feature". Trust the engineers on this group since
you're clueless when it comes to actual engineering.


manned vehicles are far more complex than unmanned, and you cant
accept failure.... in a manned vehicle.....

Sure you can. You simply have to identify the risk, and what work-arounds
are available and where you need redundancy.

I use a manned vehicle very often and accept the fact that my brakes MIGHT
fail. But it has backups.

While Apollo 13 was a combination of bad-luck (the accident) and good luck
(when it happened and a bunch of other stuff), the lifeboat idea was not
thought up entirely out of the blue.

And NASA has learned a lot since then.

Does a crewed craft to Mars have to be 100% safe? No.


while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

At the cost of current unmanned missions, they're pretty damn expensive when
they do fail.







--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article bfb3291a-364f-4b71-9248-4b05c20cdd90@
5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

unmanned vehicles are easier to build for no maintence, when it breaks
no loss, just send another. are you planning on treatin astronauts as
disposable machines?

Manned vehicles have the advantage that the people are there and can
perform maintenance tasks. *You keep trying to make this into a "bug",
but it's really a "feature". *Trust the engineers on this group since
you're clueless when it comes to actual engineering.


manned vehicles are far more complex than unmanned, and you cant
accept failure.... in a manned vehicle.....

Sure you can. In a well designed system, a failure just means a
maintenance task becomes scheduled for an astronaut. In the meantime, a
redundant system steps in to keep things running until the broken one is
fixed.

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.


Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.

Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

Jeff

just look at how many mars missions failed, all being unmanned no big
deal just a boatload of money...

but imagine if any f those failed missions were manned

In article 27f20efe-f4d0-4893-9599-0862566febf3
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.

Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

just look at how many mars missions failed, all being unmanned no big
deal just a boatload of money...

Do you listen to yourself? So it's no big deal to lose a "boatload of
money"? Really?

but imagine if any f those failed missions were manned

Some of those failures would never have happened with a man in the loop.
Others that suffered hardware failures wouldn't have failed with a an
astronaut on the spot to fix the problem. Sure, some failures might
have led to astronaut deaths, but that's the price humans are willing to
pay for exploration. History is littered with dead explorers.



Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Jun 6, 12:34*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 27f20efe-f4d0-4893-9599-0862566febf3
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...



while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.

Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

just look at how many mars missions failed, all being unmanned no big
deal just a boatload of money...

Do you listen to yourself? *So it's no big deal to lose a "boatload of
money"? *Really?

but imagine if any f those failed missions were manned

Some of those failures would never have happened with a man in the loop.
Others that suffered hardware failures wouldn't have failed with a an
astronaut on the spot to fix the problem. *Sure, some failures might
have led to astronaut deaths, but that's the price humans are willing to
pay for exploration. *History is littered with dead explorers.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

so after each high profile mars failure what happened? did anyone get
fired? burned at the stake?

all those unmanned faiures, yet all that occured was try to find out
why to avoid a future repeat.....

On Jun 7, 1:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:34*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 27f20efe-f4d0-4893-9599-0862566febf3
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died...

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.

Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

just look at how many mars missions failed, all being unmanned no big
deal just a boatload of money...

Do you listen to yourself? *So it's no big deal to lose a "boatload of
money"? *Really?

but imagine if any f those failed missions were manned

Some of those failures would never have happened with a man in the loop.
Others that suffered hardware failures wouldn't have failed with a an
astronaut on the spot to fix the problem. *Sure, some failures might
have led to astronaut deaths, but that's the price humans are willing to
pay for exploration. *History is littered with dead explorers.

so after each high profile mars failure what happened? did anyone get
fired? burned at the stake?

all those unmanned faiures, yet all that occured was try to find out
why to avoid a future repeat.....

Which is just what occurs after MANNED failures....

DOH!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

without the funerals of astronauts, without the threat of ending
manned space. both of these since they are manned cost way more than
unmanned.

its easier to be high risk high reward with unmanned launchers since
human lives arent at risk

In article 1968a1b4-9ee2-4921-b6df-35129e199618
@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 7, 1:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Which is just what occurs after MANNED failures....

without the funerals of astronauts, without the threat of ending
manned space. both of these since they are manned cost way more than
unmanned.

its easier to be high risk high reward with unmanned launchers since
human lives arent at risk

Go home chicken little. You're ignoring history. Explorers throughout
history have died in the *pursuit* of new discoveries. Many failed to
make new discoveries, but died during the attempt. They were made of
stern stuff. You're clearly not in the same league as any of them.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Go home chicken little. *You're ignoring history. *Explorers throughout
history have died in the *pursuit* of new discoveries. *Many failed to
make new discoveries, but died during the attempt. *They were made of
stern stuff. *You're clearly not in the same league as any of them.

Jeff
-

thats fine for a private enterprise, but not acceptable for publically
funded missions, espically a biggie like mars

On Jun 7, 10:29*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:34*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 27f20efe-f4d0-4893-9599-0862566febf3
@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

while a unmanned vehicle are really throw aways, far cheaper, simpler,
and while you dont want to lose them its not like people died....

They're not "throw away" because they are still friggin expensive!
Because of this, unmanned vehicles also have multiply redundant systems.
But, when a system fails (and a backup is used), there is often *no*
chance to "fix" the failed system on an unmanned vehicle.

Now, which of these is better from a *system* reliability point of view?

just look at how many mars missions failed, all being unmanned no big
deal just a boatload of money...

Do you listen to yourself? *So it's no big deal to lose a "boatload of
money"? *Really?

but imagine if any f those failed missions were manned

Some of those failures would never have happened with a man in the loop.
Others that suffered hardware failures wouldn't have failed with a an
astronaut on the spot to fix the problem. *Sure, some failures might
have led to astronaut deaths, but that's the price humans are willing to
pay for exploration. *History is littered with dead explorers.

so after each high profile mars failure what happened? did anyone get
fired? burned at the stake?

all those unmanned faiures, yet all that occured was try to find out
why to avoid a future repeat.....

Which is just what occurs after MANNED failures....

DOH!

without the funerals of astronauts, without the threat of ending
manned space. both of these since they are manned cost way more than
unmanned.

Since you don't want to START manned space to begin with, preferring
toasters, why worry about a possible accident ENDING something you're
afraid to START based on the argument that an accident might END it?
Keep up that kind of reasoning and you're likely to disappear up your
own asshole...



its easier to be high risk high reward with unmanned launchers since
human lives arent at risk

You really don't understand human beings very well, do you?


well one thing fort certain, congress must cut entitlments at some
soon time, and with SS cuts no one will support a large publically
funded manned mission to mars...

the key to mars isnt bigger, spendier, launching a armada to send a
half a dozen people for 6 months on mars...

better to invest in infrastructure that is reusable and makes
exploration less costly. like a nuclear engine for travel between
planets....

cutting time in deep space while maximising time on mars makes
everything less costly once the nuke stage is built, properly designed
it would provide electric for a multitude of uses